Charlotte Atkins: I am delighted that Fiona and Julian Keen in my constituency have opened a brand-new NHS surgery that is well supported by the local PCT, but does the Secretary of State recognise that two years on from the new dental contract, access to NHS dental services is still inadequate? What will he and the Government do to ensure that dental health inequalities are dealt with urgently?

Dawn Primarolo: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, the announcements regarding PCTs' funding and the operational framework is expected to be made later this year. That will include the allocations arising from the working party considerations.

Fiona Mactaggart: In Slough, we have seen two quite contrasting attitudes to health inequalities, as our local primary care trust was merged with those serving the much more prosperous areas of Windsor, Maidenhead and Bracknell, where people live longer. We have narrowed the age gap between Slough and elsewhere by targeting public health in Slough but, in the consultation about the new PCT, the residents of Windsor, Maidenhead and Bracknell said, "Will Slough take all the money?". Will the Minister ensure that areas of extreme need in PCTs get the resources that they need?

Michael Penning: Londoners will have heard the complacent comments of the Minister today, but a more frank assessment comes from her ministerial colleague, Lord Darzi. In his report, he states:
	"healthcare in London is not equitable, either in terms of mental or physical health outcomes, or in terms of the funding and quality of services offered."
	Is that something that the Minister is proud of, after 11 years of a Labour Government?

Ben Bradshaw: There is no such thing as a 100 per cent. guarantee of the type that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. I hope to reassure him on his question about the national programme for IT, however, because none of the data losses over the last few months have involved that programme. It has almost entirely been the old paper-based systems of record holding that have caused the problems, which reinforces the point in my initial reply—that computer-based systems, particularly those involving the national programme, are much more secure because of encryption and other measures. Data protection is a very serious matter and we take it very seriously. We welcome the Information Commissioner's proposals to strengthen sanctions against people who breach the Data Protection Act 1998. We require all hospitals to provide information about what action they take when such breaches occur.

Bill Rammell: I acknowledge that there is an economic dimension to the conflict, and that is why, as I say, we have strongly supported the extractive industries transparency initiative at UN level. We are fooling ourselves if we do not acknowledge that there is a significant, political, ethnic conflict taking place. That has to be addressed, but it can only be done through a political solution. In particular, it means that the Presidents of DRC and Rwanda have to come together, with regional partners and international support, to make political progress.

David Drew: When one goes and sees the MONUC force, it is actually very impressive, but we know that too often in the past troops have either been badly led, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, or, more particularly, not been paid, leading which has led to ill discipline and problems on the ground. Will the Government ensure that, at the very least, the UN and all those who contribute to the force pay up front to make sure that it is equipped and able to do the work that it has set out to do?

Norman Lamb: I noted the Minister's response to the concerns raised earlier about the role of commercial interests. However, may I draw his attention to the UN panel of experts report, which specifically listed companies and individuals implicated in what it described as a multi-billion-dollar theft of the country's natural resources? The report also described the role that that played in sustaining the conflict. Yet none of those interests—none of those individuals or companies—were ever brought to justice. Is there not a need for an international system to ensure that when companies or individuals are found to have breached fundamental rules, they are brought to justice?

Alan Johnson: I am very surprised by the hon. Gentleman' response, not least because, if he has read the report, he will know that Mike Richards looked at a spectrum of alternatives. The first point—the important point—is that we will no longer withdraw NHS treatment from people who have to pay for a drug that has been recommended by their clinician but which is not available on the NHS. The hon. Gentleman says that he raised this issue months ago, but I never heard a single word about it from Conservative Front Benchers until the Conservative party conference, three months after we had announced the review. Yes, there was a question a year ago from the Opposition Back Benches, but it was not followed up at all by those on the Front Bench. Yet, suddenly, the Mr. Know-alls have always been aware of this problem and always been determined to resolve it.
	Why has Professor Richards, after talking to all his colleagues, come up with this proposal? At one end of the spectrum, there is the current, rather cruel, practice. Incidentally, I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) for the work that he has done on behalf of Linda O'Boyle's family. At the other end of the spectrum, there is something that Mike Richards calls top-ups. I do not want to get bogged down in the terminology, but the understanding of people in the profession was that some people were concerned about the change in practice, and a thorough debate took place on the issue. The understanding was that a top-up system would involve an NHS patient being offered a range of choices, one of which would involve the patient in bed No. 1 being offered a drug that was not available on the NHS and paying the NHS for it, while the patient in bed No. 2 could not afford to pay for the same drug. However, Mike Richards points out that the only people who were vehemently proposing that option were the people who felt that a tax-funded system could not survive and that, at some stage, we would need to move to an insurance-based system. They are the only people, Mike Richards says, who put forward that view. That is top-up.
	What Mike Richards has said, of course, is that we should not withdraw this treatment; we should ensure that NHS treatment continues; we should allow the patient to pay for that treatment; but we should not under any circumstances—to reiterate a point put to me in a consultation by the hon. Member for Billericay—endanger the principles of the NHS. The system of top-ups would, however, endanger that principle.  [Interruption.] This is a serious issue, so let us not have barracking from the gallery; let us rather try to understand what Professor Richards has done in a very important report over a short period. We will deal with Europe and all the other peripheral issues, but what Professor Richards has said is that we cannot carry on with this cruel system, but neither can we allow the NHS to be used to subsidise private care.
	I do not know the current position of Conservative Front Benchers on this issue. It has been all kinds of things over the last 10 years and I am not sure what it is today on this particular Wednesday; it might well have changed again— [Interruption.] Sorry, it is Tuesday today, so it will no doubt change again tomorrow. The real issue is this: what Mike Richards says is that we should have separate care, perhaps provided in a private facility in an NHS hospital; that is fine, because we allow private care in NHS hospitals. If such care in not available in an NHS hospital, the patient can get the drug from a private practitioner and have it administered at home, which is what happens in Birmingham. However, NHS care will not be withdrawn from such patients and they will be allowed to buy those drugs.
	The final point made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was about flexible and value-based pricing, which was in the Office of Fair Trading review of the pharmaceutical industry a while ago. The hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party need to understand this: either we keep the current system, which Labour Members value, of reaching a voluntary agreement with the pharmaceutical industry through the PPRS or we move to reference pricing—the European model. I believe that we would lose out from that system.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asks why we did not introduce value-based pricing earlier. The answer is that we need to negotiate it with the pharmaceutical industry. If we do not negotiate it, we will have to introduce it through legislation, which is not the route we want to take. The negotiating route has led us to a patient-access scheme, which is being used for some drugs, and we will soon, I hope, conclude our negotiations and have a flexible pricing scheme.
	The worst scheme would be the Conservative policy launched a couple of days ago, which amounts to a huge bureaucracy with every drug having to be evaluated through the system. We would lose the voluntary agreement with the pharmaceutical industry and probably lose some major research and development in pharmaceuticals. I think that Conservative Members need to get their act together; as far as I can see, the policy seems to be put forward by "Confused of Conservative central office".

Doug Henderson: I usually find eulogistic questioning both awkward and always counter-productive, but may I compliment the Secretary of State on his statement? In comparison with the arguments put forward by Conservative Members, it was clear, concise, coherent, fair and based on sound common sense, and it will be very much welcomed in my constituency. Does he believe that NICE will need additional resources to be able to carry out its reviews more speedily?

Andrew George: Can the Secretary of State reassure me that the NHS will use its procurement muscle when negotiating, especially in regard to what he described as the new and more flexible pricing arrangements, which will enable "drug companies to supply drugs to the NHS at lower initial prices, with the option of higher prices if value is proven at a later date." Will that be a one-way street? In other words, if the value is not proven, or if more drugs are purchased than anticipated, will the price go down?

Helen Southworth accordingly presented a Bill to require simple, uniform nutritional labelling on the front of packaged foods; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 November, and to be printed [Bill 158].

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2— Employer's duties in relation to industrial action ballots—
	"The following section is inserted after section 226C of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—
	"226D Employer's duties in relation to industrial action ballots
	(1) It is the duty of an employer reasonably to co-operate generally, in connection with a ballot conducted or proposed for the purposes of section 226, with the trade union (or unions) and the person appointed to conduct the ballot.
	(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it is the duty of an employer to supply to a trade union in good time information reasonably requested by the trade union for the purposes of establishing the names, addresses, categories and workplaces of those members whom it wishes to ballot for the purposes of section 226.".'.
	New clause 3— Agency labour replacing those taking lawful industrial action—
	"In the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3319), after regulation 7 (restriction on providing work-seekers in industrial disputes) insert the following regulation—
	 "Restriction on hirers in industrial disputes
	7A (1) A person shall not hire a work-seeker to perform—
	(a) the duties normally performed by a worker who is taking part, or intends to or is about to take part, in a lawful strike or other lawful industrial action, and in respect of whom notice of a strike or other industrial action has been given by a trade union ("the first worker"), or
	(b) the duties normally performed by any other worker employed by the hirer and who is assigned by the hirer to perform duties normally performed by the first worker (whether or not the employer is contractually entitled to require the other worker to perform those duties).
	(2) Where a person seeks to become the hirer of a work-seeker wholly or partly by reason of (or of the prospect of) a strike or other industrial action, that person shall, before being supplied with a work-seeker by an employment business, inform the employment business of that fact.
	(3) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply if, in relation to the first worker, the strike action or other industrial action in question is an unofficial strike or other unofficial industrial action for the purposes of section 237 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
	(4) In this regulation and in regulation 7, "employment business" includes an agency.".'.

Nick Palmer: I have a lot of sympathy for my hon. Friend's new clauses, and I am inclined to vote for the one on which he will call a Division, but, on the point that he just made, I am concerned that we would be asking the employer to prove a negative—that the interest in striking was not for the reason for the proposed dismissal. I wonder whether it would not set an impossibly high hurdle, whereby someone who was threatened with dismissal could threaten to strike to invoke the new clause.

Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend is being somewhat unkind about the history of such matters. As someone who dealt with the issue in 1999, I can say that the determining factor is not whether an employer is in the public or private sector, but the relationship at the point that the dispute breaks out and industrial action becomes possible. It is irrelevant whether the employer is in the public or private sector. The consequences are quite devastating, and the real issue is not the right of trade unions as bodies, but about maximising the participation of the work force in a decision that might lead to them withdrawing their labour, with all the consequences that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

John McDonnell: We would then be on a par with European law, because the right to strike is in place in most European constitutions. As my hon. Friend knows, the history of this goes back to Taff Vale in 1906, when we gained impunity against actions for tort when industrial action was taking place. The interesting thing is, however, that we now have fewer trade union rights in this country than we had in 1906. After 11 years of a Labour Government, I congratulate them on some of the improvements that have been made, and I am hoping that tonight we will be able to move that bit further towards re-establishing some fundamental rights for trade unionists.
	New clause 3 deals with agencies, and seeks to address the continuing problem of the use of agency workers by an employer to replace striking workers during an industrial dispute. I congratulate the Government on seeking to address that issue in 2003, but certain anomalies remain as a result of problems with the law. The new clause seeks to tidy up the Government's original proposals. I should like to explain that in a little more detail.
	In 2003, the Government introduced the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. The regulations bar the use of replacement labour to carry out the duties normally performed by a worker undertaking lawful industrial action or lawful strike action. They also bar the replacement of a worker who has been assigned to do the work normally performed by a worker undertaking lawful industrial action or lawful strike action. There are, however, three fundamental weaknesses in the regulations that need attention.
	First, the regulations differentiate between an employment agency and an employment business. An employment agency introduces workers to hirers for direct employment by the hirer, and it can include temporary contracts. An employment business, on the other hand, supplies temporary and casual workers to third-party hirers. The clause barring the provision of replacement labour during lawful strikes applies only to those hired through employment businesses. If an employer hires labour through an agency rather than a business, they can avoid liability for engaging casual labour during lawful strikes. The amending provision would remove that anomaly. Secondly, the bar on supplying replacement labour applies only if the supplier knows that the worker is replacing one taking industrial action, so the onus is on the supplier of the labour to know whether industrial action has taken place. The amendment would clarify the regulations to impose a duty on the hirer—the employer—to inform the supplier about industrial action, and makes it unlawful for the hirer to hire replacement workers to carry out work usually done by workers who are lawfully engaged in industrial action. It closes that loophole; it is a tidying-up provision.
	Thirdly, current regulations relate to replacement labour being employed during periods of official industrial action. However, the legislation has proved ineffective in that it allows employers to hire labour just prior to industrial action, thereby letting bad employers avoid the intent of the legislation. The amending provision would ensure that replacement labour could not be used to do the work of those taking part or intending to take part in a lawful strike.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) provided a good example earlier when she mentioned the Communication Workers Union dispute at Royal Mail. Hon. Members will recall that the CWU took industrial action in 2007 when Royal Mail was repeatedly challenged about the recruitment of casual labour during the dispute. The union referred to the restrictions in the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, claiming that in Bristol alone the use of casual staff increased from 12 immediately prior to the dispute to more than 250 during the dispute. The employer, the Royal Mail, insisted that it was acting in accordance with the law. So confident was it in its ability to circumvent the intention of the legislation that it established a number of operations at various sites across the country to do the work of the striking workers, using casual labour. It did so by utilising the loopholes in the Government's legislation. The use of such tactics undermined the staff's decision to go on strike and demonstrated the failure of the regulations to prevent employers' abuses, which the Government had sought to legislate against. It soured industrial relations in the Royal Mail for a long period to come.

Kate Hoey: I want to add to my hon. Friend's point about the bitterness that has been caused in the unions. The Communication Workers Union does things properly and has done so for many years, and its members serve the public day in, day out. I know how much bitterness has been left—in areas such as my Nine Elms and other parts of London—as a result of what happened in that dispute. It has been particularly damaging and it shows precisely why the Government should accept the new clause. Otherwise, long-term damage will be done to the relationship between trade unions and the public.

Andrew Dismore: As my hon. Friend knows, I have signed up to his new clauses. If the Government are not minded to accept them, however, does my hon. Friend agree that since the previous reform was brought about through regulations, the Government could quickly produce amendments to those regulations, which could then be passed relatively quickly if they thought it desirable?

Jonathan Djanogly: The Bill has wound its way between our two Houses for some time now—I believe since 7 December last year—with more or less agreement between the various parties on its contents, albeit with a difference of emphasis. We feel that the Bill is also a lost opportunity in failing to relieve the regulatory burden on business in respect of employment. As to these pro-union new clauses, the mood changes somewhat, as we totally oppose them. Here the true face and belief of the hard left of the Labour party is exposed and it is not a pretty sight for business.
	The starting point of all modern industrial relation law is—and has been for well over 100 years—that industrial action is unlawful unless protected. In effect, participants in authorised industrial action have protections against being sued, making industrial action lawful. As such, the new clauses would represent the most fundamental change to industrial relations law for a century and could catastrophically unbalance industrial relations in the UK, empowering trade unions to bring our economy to its knees.
	Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 was inserted by the Employment Relations Act 1999. As it currently stands, the section provides protection to a striking employee within a framework. There is no sense that the employee is to be considered unfairly dismissed through an arbitrary action in statute. The new clause would allow striking employees to hold companies to ransom. It would serve as a brake on commercial enterprise and return us to the dark days of the 1970s—three-day weeks and perpetual strike action.

Lorely Burt: Following that speech, I hope to throw a little more light than heat on our proceedings.
	Unlike some Members, I have listened carefully to both sides of the argument, and have taken advice from both the TUC and the CBI. On new clause 1, I cannot quite agree with the CBI, which has said:
	"Implying that industrial action is inherently lawful would represent the most fundamental change to industrial relations law in generations—and could empower trade unions to bring our economy to its knees".
	I do not recognise that description, nor do I recognise the description that we heard from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).
	New clause 1 would replace the section of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 which deals with the dismissal procedures applying to those who participate in official industrial action with a new section that strengthened the protection of employees participating in lawful industrial action. The question is whether the onus should be on the employer to prove that a dismissal was not related to a strike, or on the employee to prove that it was. If the dispute was about wages the new clause would work, but if it was related to disciplinary charges or charges of victimisation, it might well encourage workers to go on strike in the knowledge that they could not be sacked. Although I am very sympathetic to the aims of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I hope that the Government will investigate the new clause further, and return with a proposal on which all Members can agree.

Lorely Burt: The hon. Gentleman probably knows the answer to that question better than I do. Perhaps he will be able to inform the House later.
	How does an employer know whether all the categories of staff on whom the union asks for information are actually union members? I suggest that he cannot know. Is it not up to unions to keep records of their own members? In my view, the new clause imposes an onerous additional requirement on employers,
	New clause 3 is reasonable, and we would support it. It seems that there are loopholes in existing law and that employers and agencies are colluding to get round current legal requirements. If, as some Members might wish to imply, such loopholes do not exist, there is no harm in adding the new clause to the Bill.
	We do not support new clauses 1 and 2. I believe that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will press only new clause 2 to a Division. That is a shame, as I would have welcomed the opportunity to support him on new clause 3.

Patrick McFadden: That is not a decision for me. That would be how the law would apply if somebody took up a complaint that was thought to be strong enough to merit that.
	In conclusion, I am aware of some of the representations that have been made. We are always happy to look into these things, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the new clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has said that he wants to press one of them to a vote, but I am afraid that I shall have to ask colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6— Right not to be excluded or expelled from union: repeal—
	'In the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (c. 52) sections 174 to 177 (which make provision about the right to membership of trade union) are repealed.'.
	Amendment No. 3, page 17, line 7, leave out clause 19.
	Amendment No. 10, in clause 19, page 18, line 15, at end add—
	'(4) In section 177 (interpretation and other supplementary provision), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) For the purposes of section 174 an individual will only be considered to be a member of a political party if for the 12 months prior to the date of an individual's application for membership of the trade union or at any point thereafter that individual is registered with the political party as a member."'.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 18, line 15, clause 19, at end add—
	'(4) In section 177 (interpretation and other supplementary provision), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) For the purposes of section 174 a group will be considered to be a political party only where it has been registered with the Electoral Commission under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) or any foreign equivalent, and the party at the time of the individual's application for membership of the trade union remains on such a register."'.
	Amendment No. 2, in schedule, page 21, line 21, at end add—

John McDonnell: First, I pay tribute to the Public and Commercial Services Union. The new clause had its genesis in a conference of PCS environmental representatives last year. They discussed the role that they could play in tackling climate change, and the significant role of workplace representatives. The new clause therefore seeks to provide the right in law to time off work for trade union representatives who serve as environmental representatives. It would ensure reasonable time off to promote environmentally sustainable practices at work, carry out environmental audits, consult on environmental policies and carry out environmental risk assessments. It would also allow time off for training for environmental workplace representatives.
	The law currently entitles trade union representatives to reasonable time off to fulfil trade union responsibilities regarding industrial relations and health and safety matters. That is covered by the ACAS code of practice on time off for trade union duties and activities. Trade unions are working in partnership with employers to play a greater role, particularly with regard to raising awareness of environmental issues, and to develop company policies on green workplace initiatives and practices. I give the example of PCS, which has a range of environmental representatives working in various Government Departments. Those representatives are increasingly active in developing policies to tackle climate change, prevent carbon emissions and improve the environmental standards in their workplaces. They have also established a national green forum.
	Why is the issue important? Half of carbon emissions are work related. Businesses and other organisations therefore have a critical role to play in reducing emissions. Staff at all levels need to be involved. The collective action of employees, working with employers, can lead to changes in policy and individual behaviour. To date, many employers have been slow to implement carbon reduction policies and wider environmental measures. Policy statements may well have been produced, but they have not yet been translated into practical action. The Labour Research Department found that one in nine employers had comprehensive measures on energy efficiency in place. More than half did not provide any training on environmental issues, and fewer than a quarter had environmental management plans in place.
	Trade unions are now developing their role to work with employers to ensure that they develop environmentally sustainable policies and practices within individual companies and organisations, and green—environmental—representatives from trade unions can play an important role in constructing and developing a practical agenda for implementation in the workplace. Staff are willing to get involved. A recent survey demonstrated their willingness to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and their feeling that employers are not doing enough and employees need more support from employers to develop those policies. In the House, two early-day motions on that issue have been tabled over the past two years, and the last one received the support of more than 102 Members.
	We have ministerial support, too, for the unique role that trade unions can play. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), said:
	"Trade Unions have a unique and valuable role to play in raising awareness and mobilising people to help us address the challenge of climate change... And I want to congratulate those Union Environmental Reps who have demonstrated how negotiating skills and experience can be used to support environmental outcomes".
	The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was formerly responsible for such environmental matters, said that he had seen
	"at first hand the valuable role that union reps are playing... What is clear is that bottom-up union and employee led action can really make a difference."
	And, he said that hoped that we could
	"use these pilots to demonstrate to employers the benefits of working in partnership in this area."
	Employers themselves have welcomed the development of worker partnership on environmental policies. Mark Gregory, the resources director at Legal & General, made a specific commitment on employee partnership, saying:
	"One of the most difficult areas in implementing any programme is engaging employees: without the active support of the union across the Group we would find this much harder to achieve."
	Similarly, we have examples from VCA, the vehicle certification agency, and a range of other employment organisations that value the role of environmental reps working within their organisation to tackle and develop environmental policies.
	The TUC, and individual unions such as Connect, the National Union of Teachers, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Public and Commercial Services Union, have all invested resources in training members to gain the expertise to contribute to tackling carbon emissions in this way. The Climate Change Bill, which we debated last month, set challenging targets on carbon emissions—an 80 per cent. cut by 2050. We all know how difficult that will be to reach, so we all need to fulfil our responsibilities and pull together.
	The new clause would recognise the enthusiasm among the work force for tackling that challenge. Trade unions are eager to play their role, and the new clause would enable their representatives to have the resources and facilities to do so actively and in full. The Government need to recognise that—not dampen the enthusiasm of those who have become involved in such work through the trade unions—and respond constructively. On that basis, I urge the Government to consider the new clause for inclusion if not in this legislation, then in some subsequent Bill. It would enable people to use trade union facilities to develop their role as environmental representatives and to achieve environmental sustainability.

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall come to the difference in my later comments.
	There are several problems with the new clause. First, every business should be involved with environmentally sound practices, but we fail to see why employees who have trade union membership should have time off work for environmental issues when their colleagues at the next workstation simply have to get on with their work. Secondly, we do not appreciate the way in which the new clause attempts to unionise environmental issues in the workplace. "Workplace environmental reps" smacks of Orwellian, Big Brother tactics by unions. By bringing the issue within their remit, they seem to be attempting to secure preferential treatment for their members and, at the same time, to give their union a point of leverage over the business. Finally, we fail to see why the actions in proposed new section 43A (2) of the Employment Act 2002 would be better carried out by a trade union than by a company. If the proposal is for the workplace environmental rep to be there to oversee the company's own efforts, the new clause needs redrafting.

Alan Simpson: The Conservative party gave their support to the Climate Change Bill, in which it was spelt out that the direction of change would specifically include the setting of annual carbon budgets, and that at some stage they would have to be translated into sectoral and company targets, so will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to explain to the House the role that Conservative Members expect trade unions in a workplace to play in constructing the carbon budgets that the company seeks to introduce?

Tony Lloyd: I shall not come to that point immediately, but if the hon. Gentleman bears with me I shall certainly address it towards the end of my remarks, because it is important.
	Those who know the background to the judgment that has led to the Bill will regard what I am about to say as a little long-winded. However, it is important to place on record the fact that the background to this whole situation is a decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which is controversial among some Conservative Members, although not among Labour ones. The Court sat in judgment on a case between ASLEF and Jay Lee, a BNP member who was expelled from the union.
	Industrial tribunals in the United Kingdom had held that the union had behaved unlawfully in expelling Mr. Lee. The Court, however, stated:
	"it is uncontroversial that religious bodies and political parties can generally regulate their membership to include only those who share their beliefs and ideals. Similarly, the right to join a union 'for the protection of his interests' cannot be interpreted as conferring a general right to join the union of one's choice irrespective of the rules of the union: in the exercise of their rights under Article 11 � 1 unions must remain free to decide, in accordance with union rules, questions concerning admission to and expulsion from the union.
	The Court made a clear decision that ASLEF's action was legitimate. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), I should emphasise that the Court said that unions must remain free to decide in accordance with union rules; that is an important conditioner of union behaviour and of what the law means. The Court's decision was unequivocal. It went on to say that any restriction on a union's right to expel should be proportionate.
	Let me concede at this point that the Government's intentions have been proper: to make domestic law consistent with the judgment of the ECHR. Nothing lies between the Minister and other Labour Membersand, I hope, others across the Housein wanting that ambition to be achieved. As I said, when it made its first progress in the House of Lords, the Bill had a form of words that would have been acceptable to all parties, certainly to the Government and Labour Members. At that point the Government view was, rightly, that the combination of existing statute, union rulebooks, unions' legal obligation to conform to their rulebooks, and the capacity of the certification officer to rule on what the unions did, provided adequate protection against arbitrary or unfair expulsion or a refusal to accept for membership not BNP members but Conservative trade unionists, perhaps, or those from certain religious backgrounds.
	There is already protection against such arbitrariness in the law, save where it is clear in the rule book that that expulsion can take place in a way that is consistent with that rule book. I would say to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead that under the clause as it stands, or under the amendment, the capacity of the union to change its rules to expel a member of the Labour party, for example, still exists. Under any of these formulations, it would be possible for a union to expel a member for political or other reasons as long as that was consistent with the rules.
	However, it is almost inconceivable that that would take place in a society such as ours. There is no evidence that any member of the Conservative party has ever been expelled by any trade unionthe Fire Brigades Union or any otheror that people have been expelled from trade unions for being members of the Labour party. That is because the values of the Conservative party, even though I do not share them, are consistent with the objectives of British trade unionsas are, clearly, the values of the Labour party. There is no inconsistency there; the inconsistency comes with a party that is avowedly fascist and does not share the ambitions of the trade unions for equality among their membersthose who are black or Asian, as well as those who are not black or Asian or are from any other minority ethnic community but share the anti-racist values of those unions.
	The problem with the amendments that the Government accepted in the House of Lords is that they have moved the agenda on to give too much protection to the individual who feels disgruntled by this process at the expense of the rights of the collective. In particular, these changes ignore the general principle of the right of any organisationpolitical party, charity or trade unionto freedom of association or freedom not to associate. The interests of an individual fascist who does not want to be a member of the same union as black, Jewish or Asian colleagues are put ahead of the rights of those black, Jewish or Asian colleagues not to want to be a member of a trade union with a fascist involved. That is an important freedom that is being eroded.

Tony Lloyd: Let me answer that simply. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman refers to is different from a political party. Hopefully, our great political parties have a great material impact on the people of this country, and I would not want to allow the suggestion to run abroad that being a member of a political party is trivial, or membership of a church for that matter. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has specific ambitions, expelled some members whose expulsion was held to be legal because it was consistent with what that organisation sought to do.

Tony Lloyd: Yes, except for the fact that, as my hon. Friend knows, some good legal opinion says, We do not know what an objective means. It is not well defined in the Bill or more generally. We know what the rulebook is, but to talk about the objectives of the union is to talk about an amorphous concept. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I know that he has far more legal experience than I have, but he does not have more legal experience than all the lawyers I have spoken to. He and other lawyers disagree, which does not mean to say that he is wrong, but he and my hon. Friend the Minister have to reflect on the fact that if lawyers are disagreeing at this point, the Bill is not good law. That is the issue we have to address.

Tony Lloyd: It could indeed be a lobbying organisation if, as in the case of ASLEF, it is a membership organisation that is fascist. That touches on what we are seeking to achieve. The ASLEF rulebook was consistent with its ambition to drive racists out of the union because they are incompatible with the rest of their members. It is important that it can so proscribe, which is why we do not want to build into the Bill the need to name the BNP or whatever. There is obviously a dispute between us as to whether that is necessary.

Tony Lloyd: I do not think that I shall comment on the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield, except to acknowledge it, which means it will now appear in the  Official Report.
	Under the Bill, or my new clause, it would always be possible for the rules to be drawn up to exclude people in a way that most of us would regard as being unfairthat is right. But it would require an open debate in our society, of the kind we are having today, about the exclusion of fascists, and about whether it is right and proper to exclude members of the Labour party, the Conservative party, Christian Scientists or whatever. I must say this, however: no trade union has ever gone down that road. Neither the hon. Member for Huntingdon nor any of his friends can give me an example of where trade unions have sought to expel someone for being a member of the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or any other mainstream political party. This is a very specific situation. We must not prevent the House from giving trade unions the proper capacity to do what they ought to on behalf of their members by raising the bogus spectre of unions abusing a power they have never sought, or sought to abuse.

Tony Lloyd: My question is, why should there be compensation at all in the case that we are considering? However, as my hon. Friend says, why is it out of line with other forms of compensation?
	If new clause 6 were adopted instead of the current provisions, it would grant the flexibility that the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead seeks. It would provide for a much more general process that was consistent with the union rule book. The union rule book couldas the ASLEF rule book didspecify that,
	no person shall be admitted into membership... if... they are members of, supporters of, or sympathisers with organisations which are diametrically opposed to objects of the union, such as a fascist organisation.
	That is clear, albeit general, and covers the problem of rotating party membership. It would grant genuine protection to those who sought it against arbitrary and unfair expulsion or exclusion because of membership of other partiesthe Labour party, the Conservative party and so on. The union would be restricted by the rule book and by statute, which would insist on proper reference to the due procedures of a trade union. There are also the principles of natural justice and the role of the certification officer, who has stronger powers in a trade union than the equivalent in a private company. I therefore believe that, for example, the Conservative trade unionist and the Labour trade unionist are protected. The new clause is specifically about unions invoking their rule book to get rid of or not accept those who are avowedly fascist. We should all share that ambition.
	I therefore recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister revert to the law before it was changed, as set out in new clause 6. If he cannot accept the new clause, he must demonstrate how the genuine doubts that have been raised about the workability of clause 19 can be properly addressed. We cannot find that we have not moved matters onthat would be a victory not only for those who want to amend the measure in the wrong way, but for the BNP and its supporters.

Andrew Dismore: I rise to speak primarily to new clause 6, but I also want to say a few words about new clause 4, to which I am a signatory, in order to respond to the rather weird tirade that we heard from the Conservative Front Bench on the issue.
	Delivering the green agenda in the workplace can be done only in co-operation with the work force and the unions, even if it just means persuading people to turn the light bulbs off when they go home. To suggest that the activities set out in proposed new section 43A(2) to the Employment Act 2002, such as consulting on the workplace environment, should not be done in the firm's time, given that the environmental reps will have to negotiate with the employer about the issue, is frankly ludicrous. I therefore support new clause 4.
	My real reason for speaking is to address new clause 6 and the ASLEF judgment. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, a little while ago published a scrutiny report on the issueour 17th report of the Session. I apologise to the House that the report was not tagged on to today's debate, which it perhaps ought to have been, because it deals at length with the ASLEF judgment and its implications. When the ASLEF case went through the European Court of Human Rights, the Government rightly accepted the need to amend the law in the light of that Strasbourg judgment. They consulted on two options, the first of which was effectively the option proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) and the second of which was not quite the option in clause 19. That was the right thing to do.
	When we scrutinised the issue in our Committee, my view was very much along the lines of my hon. Friend's view. Having practised in that area of law and written a number of union rule books, I thought that the existing safeguards were adequate. The historic safeguard is the fact that the union rulebook is a contract with the membership that is subject to enforcement through contractual law and natural justice, and more latterly through the certification officer process. We discussed the issue at some length, having the benefit of advice from our legal adviser and the opportunity to look at some of the other debates. I came to the conclusion that simply could not rely on the traditional safeguards.
	The first point is about the possible impact on other political parties. The debate has focused on the BNP, but the risk is that the provisions could go beyond. We have heard a pretty anti-union tirade from the Conservative party tonight, which has reverted to type. It has been said that the Conservative party is not against the objectives and rules of most unions, but the way that it is going, one could easily see it slipping into being against such things, given its anti-union attitude.
	In the 1950s, communists were expelled from unions wholesale, and particularly from the electricians union. So this has happened before, but to the left, not the right. That is why we have to be very careful about proceeding on such a basis. The Communist party might be a fringe party now, rather than the industrial power that it was in the 1950s, but the Socialist Workers party, for example, is very active in some trade unions and organises in those unions on a political level. We have heard, too, about other campaigners being affected. For example, animal rights campaigners might set up a party to campaign in unions involved in scientific industries, which could cause significant difficulties.
	We need to consider what the ASLEF judgment said. It said what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central has already described, but it also said that
	the State must nonetheless protect the individual against any abuse of a dominant position by trade unions
	and then set out the need for appropriate safeguards. It is interesting that when we discussed the issue in my Committee, Lord Morris, the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, an influential trade unionist in his time and a man with immense experience of trade unions, was concerned about the lack of additional safeguards. I should also pray in aid Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, my old law professor from decades ago and probably the doyenne of trade union law, who also expressed his concerns in debates in the House of Lords about the lack of additional safeguards. As a result, my Committee proposed an amendment. A member of my Committee from the Liberal Democrat Benches, Lord Lester, also proposed his own amendment, which Lord Wedderburn thought was rather good, because it was as narrow as we could get, while also concomitant with the need for appropriate safeguards.
	The problem with the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central is that, while it might rectify some of the incompatibilities, it does not deal with the need for appropriate safeguards. For example, none of the existing safeguardsthe contractual rulebook safeguard and the certification officer safeguardis available to deal with a person who is excluded from trade union membership in the first place, as opposed to having been expelled. Such a person cannot go to the certification officer, and they cannot go to court for a breach of the union rules.
	I hope that we will pay attention to the issue of human rights in these circumstances. Sometimes, human rights can be a little inconvenient for us on the left, as well. There is clearly a positive obligation under human rights law to provide safeguards against abuse, and that is why my Committee proposed an amendment. My problem is that clause 19, as it stands, goes rather further than that amendment. My hon. Friend has made some quite trenchant criticisms of certain aspects of clause 19. I disagree with his point about the rules and objectives of the unions. Having written union rule books, I think it is pretty clear that most of them have clear objectives at the start of the rules, and that the rules are clear. They normally deal with the process, rather than the politics.
	The part of clause 19 that states
	 if it is not reasonably practicable for the objective
	of the union
	to be ascertained
	contains some rather woolly wording that we do not actually need. Also, the part that deals with the process issues contains rather more detail than is necessary.
	Ideally, the Bill should not have started out in the House of Lords. We should have started it off in the Commons, and it could then have gone backwards and forwards. My main concern is that we are now caught between a rock and a hard placethat is, between my hon. Friend's new clause, which I do not think is human-rights compliant, and clause 19, which probably is human-rights compliant from the safeguards point of view, but which might go a little too far from the ASLEF judgment point of view. Neither option before us is ideal.
	My real concern is for the Bill as a whole. If we were to agree to my hon. Friend's new clause, we would inevitably end up engaging in ping-pong with the House of Lords, and the House of Lords has made it pretty clear that it is not going to go down the route suggested by my hon. Friend. We would therefore run the risk of losing all the good stuff in the Bill as well. On balance, therefore, my view is that we should leave clause 19imperfect though it isin the Bill.

Stephen Crabb: I will not give way.
	Too many advances have been made since 1992 for us to return to that position. We therefore oppose those amendments.
	We accept the legal authority of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the ASLEF case, but we would like to put on record our deep unease with it. To our mind, it marks a further erosion of personal civil liberties by an organisation whose remit is supposedly to protect them. Here we have a court of human rights reining in the freedoms of an individual.
	I should like to move on to amendment No. 10, which seeks to place a limit on how far back a trade union is entitled to look into a member's past to find reasons to exclude or expel that person. I accept that this is a question of balancing interests, proportionately and in a common sense fashion. We recognise that, with time, people change, that their views change and their actions are adapted. As we pointed out in Committee, membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament as a student in the '60s should not automatically allow a 50-year-old to be expelled from a trade union that represents workers in the nuclear industry

Stephen Crabb: I am not giving way.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) was kind enough to give us a practical example, when he said:
	I was a communist when I was young, although I was not a party member. I was quite open about it. I can imagine a situation in which that could be used against me professionally. [ Official Report, Employment Public Bill Committee, 16 October 2008; c. 79.]
	We agree with his concern. The Bill's provisions seem at odds with a person's human rights, so our amendment would address that wrong by saying that party membership must have been within the 12 months prior to an individual's application for trade union membership. On the advice of a number of hon. Members in Committee, we have also tightened the drafting to include future party membership. We hope that that will satisfy other concerns that had been expressed. It seems unfair to us that the union's right to expel should last for ever. Amendment No. 10 would deal with that concern and I give notice of my intention to press it to a Division.
	Amendment No. 11 also addresses our ongoing concerns about the definition of what constitutes a political party, because, as things stand, there is no definition in the Bill, so we believe we are in real danger of enacting a clause that has an effect far more damaging than it should have. We need to ask at what point a person's associations become more indicative of their beliefs than their individual conduct or characteristics. Several members of the Committee noted that although they were members of one of the main political parties, they did not necessarily agree with the entirety of their party's views. We know that political parties are broad churches, but I fear that we are danger of tarring all with the same brush.
	The choice to become a member of a political party is an active choice and a definite action, but it might be inspired by any number of reasons. I wonder how many new Labour party members who joined around 1997 in the heyday of Mr. Blair now find themselves in a very different party, as we have seen this evening, putting forward 1970s-style trade union legislation. Clause 19 is a recipe for disaster.
	I agree with those hon. Members who believe that we should be worried about the British National party, but we may be missing the wood for the trees. We reminded members of the Committee that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson) supported original legislation to protect communists and their fellow travellers from being hounded out of the unions, so although we can talk about countering the BNP, we must not think that legislation is the only means of doing so. It is not, and many other organisations could be caught in that legislative net.
	Given the position in which we find ourselves, we need carefully to regulate who will be caught, which is why we suggest limiting expulsion rights to registered members of political parties. We accept that proposal has flawspersonally, I have real sympathy with some of the ideas expressed in Committee, especially on extreme political groups such as Combat 18 or the Militant Tendency, which would fall outside my definition of a political partybut we have to understand that we are debating this on the back of the ASLEF decision. Since 1993, as the Minister rightly noted in Committee, the unions have had the power to expel or exclude an individual on the basis of their conduct. The clause deals expressly with political party membershipthe very issue at stake in the ASLEF case.
	When we fall within the wide parameters of democracy, the spectrum of beliefs is very broad and the question becomes where we draw the line and who draws it. We must be careful not to allow the Bill to creep into areas that it is not designed to cover. The ASLEF decision dealt only with expulsion or exclusion on the basis of political party membership, not on the basis of conduct or association with a group. We must ensure that we draw the line at a reasonable place, and I believe that our amendment does just that. If we do not say that the provisions should apply to registered members of political parties, to whom will they applypeople who wear Nazi insignia or Che Guevara T-shirts or who are known to associate with extremists? I fear that we may end up with trade union witch hunts in which members who show even the slightest diversion from the party line find themselves out on their ear.
	As with much of the Bill, we are being forced to accept the lesser of two evils. For us, certainty is preferable. One thing is for sure: as things stand, clause 19 is inviting court cases to decide what constitutes a political partyand many extreme groups have shown themselves only too happy to go to court over such matters. The amendment will, I hope, provide less room for them to do so.

Ian McCartney: I rise to support clause 19. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas)he has unfortunately left the Chamber for a few minutes, but has been in his place since the debate startedand I spent time in 1997 and 2007 working on an almost daily basis with Government lawyers, trade union lawyers and employers' lawyers to put right the failure of the last Conservative Government effectively to implement any European legislation relating to employment rights in the workplace. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is probably too young to remember the witch hunts of the 1970s and '80s against trade unionists sacked by their employers simply for joining a trade union. It was this Government in 1999, who put an end to that type of witch hunt, so protecting people's right to join a union and to encourage others to join it.
	I speak from a non-legal standpoint, but I am not putting across an anti-lawyer argument, as over the years in my time as a trade unionist, many lawyers helped me with advice and support. Indeed, Lord Wedderburn is a hero of mine. He has spent his life not only looking at the law in intellectual terms, but trying to implement it in a practical, common-sense way.
	There is no such thing as a perfect piece of legislation. We have to ensure that once enacted, it achieves the objectives in a way that maximises support for it within the community and wider society. In my view, we are righting a wrong against ASLEF and others. No one has so far congratulated ASLEF and other trade unions up and down this country on spending a lifetime opposing fascism, especially when it infiltrates their organisations. We should congratulate ASLEF on sticking to its guns and winning an important legal point.
	The point that ASLEF won was not to do with its rule book per se. Instead, it related to a piece of legislation introduced by the Conservatives in 1992 which was a breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights. A Conservative Government implemented bad legislation. On behalf of the European Court on Human Rights, we are attempting to implement a new piece of legislation to get rid of what happened in 1992 which was so damaging to ASLEF and others.
	No doubt if we pass the Bill, all unions should, as a matter of course, look at the rule book to ensure that it is compatible with changes set out in clause 19 so that they can use it effectively now and in the future to protect themselves, their members and workers in the workplace against fascist activity by individuals or collective groups of individuals, whether they are in the BNP or other organisations.

Ian McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman is about my age. He should have realised what was happening in the 1950s. There were witch hunts against communists, but not by trade unions or trade unionists; they were carried out by right-wing politicians here and in America, and of course blacklists were introduced by Conservative employers which lasted all the way through to 1999. This Government got rid of blacklists as well. There is a history of people being blacklisted and blackballed, but not for their political views, in the way that we are talking about the BNP and fascists, but because of their capacity and willingness to represent working-class people in the workplace against employers who did them down. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk history, he should get it straight.
	The issue is simple. Does the proposal accepted in the Lords achieve the objectives? First, does it achieve the aims set out by the Court in ASLEF  v. UK? Secondly, in achieving that objective, does it give trade unions the opportunity in a practical way to take account of changing circumstances in the future, both in terms of fascist organisations and individuals in the way in which they organise and operate, or attempt to do so, in the wider community and workplace? If Lord Wedderburn says to me that that is exactly what the proposal does, with the appropriate safeguards, then I will back him on any occasion. If Bill Morris, a colleague of mine, says from his perspective as a former general secretary of a union that has a history of shop stewards being blacklisting and undermined in the workplace that the proposal is the most effective way forward and achieves the objectives set out when ASLEF appealed in the court, we should accept it as a victory.
	I know of no piece of legislation passed in this place on employment rights or the protection of trade unions that will not come under scrutiny or challenge. The reality is that the Bill will be challenged, as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was challenged. We thought that the Act protected pupil barristers, but barristers went to the High Court and had the legislation overturned. We thought that that decision was wrong, and we came back to the House and amended the Act to protect workers from being undermined.
	When lawyers disagree with each other, it is no reason for us to lose our nerve and not do the right thing by ASLEF and other trade unions. The Bill overwhelmingly does the right thing. We need to do what it sets out, not just because the court told us to do so, but because ASLEF was right in the first instance in protecting itself and its members from fascist organisations and fascist individuals.
	I shall support clause 19. Let us get on with the task that ASLEF set us all so many years ago. Let us organise a victory against fascism and racism in the workplace, and encourage people to join unions. Clause 19 will enable many people out there who are not union members to take comfort in the knowledge that they can join a union without being victims of abuse from fellow members who are racists.

Patrick McFadden: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not believe the clause is unworkable. If he allows me to develop the point, I will talk about the safeguards that we have built in and the proposals to which we have listened in the debate on this matter.
	As has been said, when we consulted on changing the law in this regard, we canvassed two options, both of which introduced changes relating to the particular part of section 174 that deals with political party membership. When we introduced the Bill, we thought that the more deregulatory option A was the better approach to follow. As has been mentioned, in subsequent debate in the other place, when strong representations were made by Lord Morris of Handsworth and others, and the deliberations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights a strong case was made for more safeguards against potential abuse.
	Hon. Members have cited the Joint Committee's report. It said that expulsions should be permitted if
	the decision to exclude or expel was taken in accordance with the union's rules and a fair procedure
	and
	the consequences of exclusion or expulsion would not result in exceptional hardship.
	It made a reference to the union's rules not being wholly unreasonable, but went on to say that that
	may be regarded as an invitation to litigate the reasonableness of a union's rules.
	It therefore did not press that point.
	Hon. Members may say that in all those representations a judgment is made about the clause as it stands. Let me lay to rest some misconceptions about the changes that we have made to the clause. It is certainly not the case that the Government are somehow refusing to legislate in line with the judgment; we believe that it is right to legislate in line with the judgment. Members can be expelled on grounds of political conduct, but we are now talking about membership of political parties. It is not the caseas has been reported, including todaythat the changes will mean automatic compensation for those expelled or excluded. If trade unions act in line with the clause, compensation will not be necessary.
	Lord Morris took part in the debate on the clause, as amended, and concluded:
	Three key principles have been met: Britain will be able to comply with its statutory obligations, trade unions will have freedom and democratic rights in respect of their rule books, while the ability to discipline their members has been preserved, and members' rights to natural justice will be safeguarded. On that basis...I wish the Bill well on its way.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 2008; Vol. 702, c. 21.]
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central that the question is not whether we legislate in line with the European convention on human rights, but how we do so. Clause 19 is compatible with the convention, especially given that we are not dealing specifically with the BNPlegislation must be applicable to all members of the public.
	New clause 6 proposes a third wayif my hon. Friend will forgive me for putting it like thaton top of our two options. It would delete clause 19 and repeal section 174 and related sections of the 1992 Act. The Court did not examine section 174 more widely, but focused heavily on the particular facts of the case, which concerned the expelled member's political party membership and its compatibility with the union's rules and political orientation. I appreciate my hon. Friend's intentions, and I agree that we have a shared objective, but the Government do not think it necessary to extrapolate the Court's reasoning in the way that new clause 6 does in order to legislate in line with the judgment.
	My hon. Friend asked whether ASLEF could have expelled Mr. Lee under clause 19. I repeat that clause 19 does not mean that names of political parties have to be specified in the rule book. The important question is whether a trade union can use clause 19, and the procedures built into it, to expel or exclude members. It sets out a process whereby unions can act in line with the judgment. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 would restrict the operation of the clause too much. How is a union to check exactly how many months a person has been a member of a political party?
	When the Conservative party was in government, it introduced legislation on the rights of political parties, but did not produce the definition that Conservative Members are calling for tonight. How is a union supposed to police registration systems around the world? We intend to legislate in line with the judgment in a way that trade unions can use, but we do not intend to restrict that so much that the legislation is impossible to operate in practice. For that reason, if the Opposition press their amendments, I shall ask my colleagues to resist them. On clause 19, the Government have listened and responded to points that have been made. It is the best way to operate.

Patrick McFadden: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill covers a number of significant issues. It reforms dispute resolution at work, minimum wage legislation, employment agencies legislation and, as we have just discussed, trade union membership. It brings together elements of the Government's employment relations strategy to increase protection for vulnerable workers and reduce costs for law-abiding businesses. The Bill gives a better deal to low-paid workers and to agency workers, who have been denied the national minimum wage against their rights. The Bill reflects on 10 years' experience of the national minimum wage and seeks to build on it.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on securing this debate. I am sincerely sorry to learn that her experience of security at Gatwick airport was far from happy. It is also disappointing that she had to go to so much trouble to follow the matter up, and sometimes even had difficulty in finding the right person to deal with.
	Responsibility for each security measure is allocated by law to appropriate parts of the complex aviation industry, and it clearly is a complex system. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department for Transport, as the security regulator for the industry, monitors performance through its inspectors and takes appropriate action where required. I will turn to the specific questions my hon. Friend asked shortly, but I would like to begin with some more general remarks to set the scene.
	We are in a period of sustained severe threat to the UK from terrorist attack. Aviation remains an aspirational terrorist target. A lot of good work is done by the aviation industry to deliver security requirements. At Gatwick, the airport deploys the very latest equipment available for the screening of cabin bags and the passengers themselves. The staff working at airports have a difficult task, and I am sure Members will join me in paying tribute to the hard work they do. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) raised this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, who has had the problems, has generously accepted that staff generally do an excellent job in difficult circumstances. We all appreciate their efforts. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment now on specific operational matters at particular locations, but what I will do is set out the general context of the UK's aviation security programme with reference to Gatwick airport, and respond to her points later.
	As I have said, the Department for Transport sets the standards for aviation security, but it is up to the airport's own management to decide precisely how it will ensure that these standards are met. Locations differ, and this means that different practical approaches to security need to be taken.
	The other essential aspect of aviation security that I should touch on is what we call the layered approach to security. Public attention on aviation security is often focused on the aspects of security that are most obvious to travellers, such as X-raying of hand luggage and walking through a metal detector, and, of course, these are important aspects of the security picture. Importantly, however, these are only small parts of the security picture. Other aspects such as physical security measures, staff screening, policing, intelligence, travel document security and staff training all contribute to the layered security arrangements at Gatwick and other airports.
	The Department for Transport always investigates any alleged breach of security so that any weaknesses can be addressed. However, we also have to consider the balance between the public's right to be informed of the risksand the mitigating measuresand the need to ensure that terrorists are not fully aware of the preventive measures in place.
	This brings me back to the layered approach to security. None of the parts of the security set-up at any location can, by themselves, deliver 100 per cent. security. As my hon. Friend mentioned, the knife she accidentally took on board an aircraft in her hand luggage when she went on holiday in August was not detected. The fact is that BAA plc made a mistake, and I am not here to make excuses for itand, to be perfectly frank, after listening to the litany of problems my hon. Friend had, I would not know where to start.
	As my hon. Friend says, BAA has written to her on a number of occasions, and, as well as taking steps to retrain the security officers concerned, it has a new procedure in place to respond to complaints of the kind that she made. As I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, this is not the end of the matter. Airport security is not simply about dealing with particular incidents of the kind she mentioned; it is a continuous process of maintaining and improving high standards in a difficult working environment. While we are reliant on the airports themselves to ensure that the necessary measures are implemented on a day-to-day basis, we undertake a regular programme of compliance-monitoring visits, including announced and unannounced inspections, and we provide appropriate advice and guidance to the industry. The inspection of Gatwick airport that was carried out by the European Commission in October, to which my hon. Friend referred, is one part of the programme of work that the Department for Transport and the European Commission have in place for Gatwick and other airports.
	My hon. Friend asked two specific questions about Gatwick. The first was whether I would ask BAA to provide a timeline of when precisely the crew was taken off duty, what kind of retraining they received and when they returned to work. I will certainly do that, and I will let her have a copy of the response I receive from BAA.
	My hon. Friend also asked about reports of the European Commission inspections of UK airports. I assure her that my Department acts on information arising from our joint working with European inspectors. The information that emerges from any inspection is always constructive and is the subject of a great deal of activity by Department for Transport officials and UK airports, as well as by the European Commission. For the reasons that I have stated, I cannot provide further details, but, as I am sure my hon. Friend would expect, where security is concerned we act as soon as is needed.
	Finally, my hon. Friend asked about luggage handling. It is annoying for passengers when luggage is lost or delayed, and it is in the aviation industry's own interests to make sure that that happens less often. Indeed, it happened to me this summer, so I know how frustrating it is. I must say that the airline with which I was flying found the baggage within 24 hours and couriered it back within another 24 hours, so my experience was more reassuring than her own. On the security issues surrounding delayed luggage, I can assure my hon. Friend that as well as there being 100 per cent. hold baggage screening for all bags at UK airports, there are additional, more intensive security measures above and beyond that to deal with luggage that travels separately from its owner, for whatever reason.
	In conclusion, I think we all accept that heightened aviation security measures will be with us for some time. I am sure that we also all agree that they do not make the travelling experience any more pleasant, and that it is worrying when things do not go as they shouldmy hon. Friend experienced that. I thank her for bringing this matter to our attention, congratulate her again on securing this debate and assure her that the commitments I have made this evening, both in general and to her in particular, will be fulfilled.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	  Adjourned accordingly at eleven  minutes past Ten o'clock.